“Scholars in
queer political theory, and queer theory more generally, are playing with fire.”

Rosaria Butterfield agrees with Sam Allberry,
Albert Mohler and Russell Moore that homosexuals and lesbians cannot be
converted to heterosexuals by Reparative Therapy. They even assert that such
counseling is damaging. This is curious because Rosaria’s specialty in the
field of Critical Theory at Syracuse University was “Queer Theory” which
maintains that “gender and sexuality are social constructs” and therefore
“sexuality is fluid.”

“My historical field in English studies was 19th
century literature and culture. My historical interests in 19th century
literature were grounded in the philosophical and political worldviews of
Freud, Marx, and Darwin. My primary field was Critical Theory—also known as
postmodernism. My specialty was Queer Theory (a postmodern form of
gay and lesbian studies).” (Secret Thoughts, Kindle 146-148)

“…I was thirty-six years old, happily partnered
in a lesbian relationship, and recently tenured in the English department of
Syracuse University, poised and ready to work in the field of Queer
Theory. (Openness Unhindered,
Kindle 244-245)

“Coming out as a lesbian was my way of staking my
claim at identity. Somewhere between college and graduate school, in my
mind, things shifted from ‘Why do I feel this way?’ to ‘This is who I am:
take it or leave it.’ But never did I use the concept of sexual orientation
to describe my sexual identity. I was a nineteenth-century scholar and I
held some scholarly suspicions about this category. Also, ‘sexual
orientation’ was not part of my lesbian, poststructural, queer culture….

“Terms like ‘same-sex attraction’ were also not
in my vocabulary. I had never heard of Exodus International, and I likely would have
described an ‘ex-gay’ as an unhappy camper. And no one in the LGBT community
from which I emerged would have ever claimed to have been ‘born this way.’
We believed that sexuality was fluid.
The ‘born this way’ idea was potentially pathologizing to lesbians of my
generation.

“Because we were leaders in poststructural
feminism and Queer Theory, disciplines that understood sexuality as a social
construct, we situated ourselves—for good or bad, right or wrong—in the
world of free choice. We claimed psychological proof that gender and sexuality were social constructs,
and as such, matters of personal expression
that can be changed, resisted, or shaped as our own individual sense of
personal integrity and desire allowed. (Openness
Unhindered, Kindle 1915-1924).

Rosaria still maintains that the worldly
categories of “sexual orientation” are unstable and unbiblical:

“Sometimes, these worldly identities enter into
the church intending to be a helpful category, meant to smooth the bridge of
understanding among God’s people. One such worldly category is the concept
of sexual orientation, the idea that people are born with a fixed sexual
orientation—gay, straight, or bisexual. But
this category is unstable and will not stop changing.
We are told that sexual orientation is a true and abiding category of
humanity. In the next two chapters, I show how this concept has been harmful
to all people, but especially, I believe, to believers who struggle with
unwanted homosexual desires.” (Openness Unhindered, Kindle
1636-1641)

“Thus, ‘sexual orientation’ is what we call a
neologism, and it creates fictional identities that rob people of their true
one: male and female image bearers. Sexual orientation is a word that
extends the definition of sexuality beyond its biblical confines.” (Openness
Unhindered, Kindle 1696-1698)

“I…acknowledge that sexuality rests on a
continuum, ranging between fixedness and fluidity.” (Openness Unhindered,
Kindle 2441-2442)

If homosexuality is not a fixed identity, but
“fluid” as Rosaria avers, why then should homosexuals be denied Reparative
Therapy to make the transition to heterosexuality?” Does she have a
hidden agenda?

“Because we wereleaders in
poststructural feminism and Queer Theory, disciplines that understood
sexuality as a social construct, we situated ourselves—for good or bad,
right or wrong—in the world of free choice. We claimed psychological proof
that gender and sexuality were social constructs, and as such, matters of
personal expression that can be changed, resisted, or shaped as our own
individual sense of personal integrity and desire allowed. Because we
believed that ‘gay is good,’ weembraced a missionary’s zealabout
political and social activism. We believed that all good things
flowed from our sexual desires and the egalitarianism of our households.” (Openness
Unhindered, Kindle 1924-1929)

“In the 1990s, many people in the gay community
(myself included) ditched the term gay or lesbian for the term queer. Why?
In the sixteenth century, queer was an adjective and meant perverse,
strange, bad, worthless, and counterfeit. By the eighteenth century, queer
became dominantly used as a verb, and it meant to interfere with or spoil
(‘queer a pitch’), to swindle or to cheat. By the late nineteenth
century, queer was a pejorative term used again as a noun to refer to a new
kind of person, a homosexual.

“In an effort to take back the word, queer
activists embraced it in order to remake it on our own terms. We
believed that signs (words) and signifiers (meanings) could be reshaped
by sheer force of use, that they were inherently unstable and only found
meaning in our usage of them. We believed in the social construction of
gender and sexuality through language. We wanted to claim this term on our
turf, because once it became our term, it lost its pejorative power.”

“So, if radical queer activists can play with
language to redeem it, why can’t evangelical Christians? If language has
an inherent fluidity, why not use this on our own terms?” (Openness
Unhindered, (Kindle 2019-2022)

Rosaria Butterfield’s specialty at Syracuse
University was Queer Theory. As “a radical queer activist” and “leader in
poststructural feminism and Queer Theory,” she was “poised and ready to work
in the field of Queer Theory” having “a missionary’s zeal” to take back the
word “queer” and “remake it on their own terms.” According to Rosaria, her
career in Queer Theory political and social activism was interrupted by her
conversion to Jesus Christ. However, that is not truly the case, for
Rosaria now has a career in the Church — to “socially reconstruct gender and
sexuality though language” and to “queer”–“interfere with or spoil, to
swindle or to cheat” Christians of sound doctrine concerning the sin
of homosexuality.

We saw in Part 5: “Gay
Christians?” Rosaria Butterfield’s “queering”
of Christian doctrine and language to affirm as “Gay Christians” those who
profess to “love Jesus” yet experience homosexual attraction or activity. We
have observed her “queering” of Scripture to eviscerate passages—such as
Genesis 13:13 and 19:4 and multiple Biblical references to “sodomites”—of
the vital truth that God has declared to mankind regarding the
abomination of homosexuality.

What the Christian Church accepts as true and
teaches about homosexuality is not a mere matter of opinion. It is a serious
matter of eternal life in heaven or eternity in hell for multitudes of
deceived homosexuals.

Lesbian Camille Paglia, author of Vamps &
Tramps: New Essays, is at least honest about the abnormality and
destructive nature of homosexuality. And she has an opinion about
“word-obsessed” “Queer theorists” who deal in lies and deny the obvious:

“Homosexuality is NOT ‘normal.’ On the contrary,
it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary
character. Note I do not call it a challenge to the idea of the norm. Queer
theorists – that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders – have tried to
take the poststructuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since
everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that
word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the
outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in
nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our
sexual bodies were designed for reproduction… no fancy linguistic game
playing can change that basic fact.

“In the Eighties and early Nineties, displaced
anxiety over the horror of AIDS turned gay activists into rampaging
nihilists and monomaniacs, who dishonestly blamed the disease on the
government ... AIDS did NOT appear out of nowhere. It was a direct result of
the sexual revolution, which my generation unleashed with the best of
intentions, but whose worst effects were to be suffered primarily by gay
men. In the West, despite much propaganda to the contrary, AIDS is a gay
disease and will remain one for the foreseeable future.”

A lesbian Russian-American journalist, Masha
Gessen, revealed that the whole point of gay
marriage is to destroy heterosexual marriage:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to
marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution
of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally
involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there
— because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change,
and that is a lie.

“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And
again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in
creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when
I came out thirty years ago.

“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why
they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had
just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my
daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted
son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two
groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is
capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with
the institution of marriage.”

Masha Gessen left Russia when Vladimir Putin banned homosexual
propaganda and American adoptions of Russian children.

“In March 2013, politician Vitaly Milonov, who promoted the Russian law
against foreign adoption of Russian children, championed the law by saying:
‘The Americans want to adopt Russian children and bring them up in perverted
families like Masha Gessen’s.’…

“In December 2013, she moved to New York because Russian authorities had
begun to talk about taking children away from gay parents. In March, ‘the St
Petersburg legislator [Milonov] who had become a spokesman for the law
[against ‘homosexual propaganda' towards children] started mentioning me and
my ‘perverted family’ in his interviews,’...

“Gessen argued in a February 2014 article for Slate that the international,
and especially American, LGBT movement had failed gay Russians at the Sochi
Olympics. ‘The Sochi Games were the U.S. gay rights movement’s first real
attempt to venture into international work,’ she wrote. ‘It was an
embarrassment. If U.S. groups continue to do nothing but stage fundraisers
and strategy sessions, it will be a disgrace.’”

It appears that Rosaria Butterfield was
trained “to work in the field of Queer Theory” to covertly advance the
Cultural Marxist Revolution that Masha Gessen promotes overtly. “Because
we believed that ‘gay is good,’ we embraced a missionary’s zeal about
political and social activism. We believed that all good things flowed from
our sexual desires and the egalitarianism of our households.” (Openness
Unhindered) Rosaria Butterfield and Masha Gessen were lesbians
committed to the advancement of Cultural Marxism. The difference is
that Rosaria had an “unlikely conversion” which she describes as an “alien abduction” or a “train wreck,” after which
her “mission” has been to queer (to interfere
with, spoil, swindle or cheat) Christians into welcoming “gay Christians”
into their church membership.

GNOSTIC ORIGINS OF
QUEER THEORY

“Queer Theory—a branch of gay and lesbian studies developed in
1990; emphasizes the social construction of gender and sexuality.” (Openness
Unhindered, Kindle 364)

“Queer Theory” is not
a “postmodern” concept “developed in 1990.” Its source is ancient
Gnosticism, which was based on the homoerotic culture of ancient Greece
whose pagan religion was derived from the pre-flood culture which God
judged. The following excerpts from an article in the Biblical Theology
Bulletin (2012) titled, “Gnostically
Queer: Gender Trouble in Gnosticism” recount the history. The author,
Jonathan Cahana of the Hebrew University, writing of the ancient Gnostic
texts, noted the theme “so many of these texts have in common: a subversive
attitude to gender and ancient heteronormativity.” In
other words, Gnostics wanted to subvert male-female heterosexuality as the
social norm.

Cahana also states that the agenda of the ancient Gnostics was to “distort
and dismantle the process of gendering and queer their ‘Bible.’” That is to
say, the Gnostic agenda was “to interfere
with or spoil, to swindle or to cheat” their Bible in order to
distort and dismantle the process of gendering.

As evidence
of this Gnostic agenda, Cahana references Hippolytus’ Refutation of all Heresies,
specifically a fragment describing a 2nd century Gnostic sect,
the Naassenes, who subversively interpreted or “queered” Romans 1 to mean
the direct opposite of what the apostle Paul wrote:

“Yet the correlation between same-sex acts and the radical subversion of
gender is not something we have to suggest to the gnostics; there is at
least some evidence that they expounded this idea themselves in detail.
Hippolytus of Rome, writing approximately 150 years before Epiphanius,
describes for us the tenets of another gnostic sect, the Naassenes. The
Naassenes, taking their name from the Hebrew word for serpent, nahash,
were a Christian gnostic sect that existed during the 3rd century ce. They
‘called themselves Gnostics alleging that they alone knew the depths’ (Hippolytus,
Refutation of all Heresies, 5.6.4) and claimed that their tradition
was handed down by James through Mariamne (5.7.1). Hippolytus is our only
source for their existence, but he appears to have had access to a
full-length sermon of theirs which he sometimes quotes verbatim, albeit
interspersing it with his own comments. Part of this sermon addressed the
sacrament of baptism and underlined the Naassenes’ special—or, shall we say,
subversive?—reading of Paul’s writings. In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul
claims that same-sex acts (both male and female) are no less than God’s
punishment of the gentiles who refused to worship him (1:20–27). These
Naassenes, however, preferred to read him differently, owing to their belief
that the pure or original human being was not gendered.

‘For, says he [the Naassene], the human is masculo-feminine. According to
this argument of theirs, then, the so-called intercourse of woman with man
is by [the teaching of] their school shown to be an utterly wicked and
defiling thing. For Attis is castrated, he says, that is, he has changed
over from the earthly parts of the lower creation to the eternal substance
on high, where, he says, there is neither male nor female, but a new
creature, a new Human, who is masculo-feminine... And this they say is made
quite clear by the saying:

‘For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made by Him, in truth, His
eternal power and godhead, so that they are without excuse. Since when they
knew Him as God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but
foolishness deceived their hearts. For thinking themselves wise, they became
fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likenesses of
an image of corruptible man and of birds and of four footed and creeping
things. Wherefore God gave them up to passions of dishonor. For even their
females changed their natural use to that which is against nature. Likewise,
also the males leaving the natural use of the female burned in their lust
one toward another, males among males working unseemliness.’

“And what ‘the natural use’ is according to them, we shall see later… But
‘unseemliness’ is according to them the first and blessed and unformed
substance which is the cause of all the forms of things which are formed.
‘And receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which is meet.’
For in these words, which Paul has spoken, they say is comprised their whole
secret and the ineffable mystery of the blessed pleasure. For the promise of
baptism is not anything else according to them than the leading to unfading
pleasure him who is baptized according to them in living water and anointed
with another ointment [Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies
5.7.14–19; Legge: 124–25, with alterations].

“These Naassenes, then, argued that one should strive to reach the
ungendered state of the heavenly human, or anthrōpos, colorfully
depicted in the myth of Attis—a male—being castrated. Therefore, they
reasoned, intercourse between females and males, being the quintessential
occasion and expression of the deplorable gendered state, is something every
sensible Naassene should avoid.

The Naassenes regarded the
gendered state as “deplorable.” Are heterosexuals the “basket of deplorables”
to which Hillary Clinton referred?

The author Cahana then explains the Gnostic swindle or“
queering”
of Romans 1, that is,
turning the passage on its head by their subversive citation of it (since
the early Christians often cited it to good effect) to mean the opposite of
what Paul wrote. Thus, the Gnostics’
countered that the “natural
use of the woman”
meant earthly and therefore evil, but
“that
which is against nature,”
lesbianism, is not earthly but spiritual and therefore good.

“But that is not the end of the story, for
one should be actively subverting the process of gendering in order to
overcome it, and by reading Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, they claimed to
have found exactly how that could be done. Paul claimed that sexual acts
between females were ‘unnatural’ (para physin);
the Naassenes rejoined that since gender is ‘natural,’ it is a blessing to
act ‘unnaturally.’
Indeed, in another place Hippolytus remarks regarding the Naassenes that
‘the things which are not according to nature are with them natural’
(5.8.12). Paul went on to claim that sexual acts between males are
‘unseemly’ (aschēmosynē); the
Naassenes countered that aschēmosynē literally means ‘something
devoid of form (schēma)’ and therefore something pure and spiritual.
Paul ended by warning that those who do such things receive ‘in themselves
the recompense of their error which is meet,’ to which
Naassenes replied that this ‘recompense’ is no less than a secret ‘blessed
pleasure,’
followed by baptism and unction with ‘another oil.’ It may not be beside the
point to remark here that baptism in the early church was almost always
performed in full nudity (Ferguson: 855), and that the only other place in
the whole Refutation where Hippolytus employs the root of the word
‘unseemly’ is at the beginning of the work, where he vows to reveal all the
heretics to be ‘naked and unseemly’ (Proem.5.7: gumnous kai aschēmonas).”

Cahana then explains that the Naassenes’ “queered” interpretation of Romans
1 was based on the institutionalized homosexuality and pederasty of
Greco-Roman culture. The homosexual culture of ancient Greece and Rome
directly influenced the homosexual Gnostic heretics of the early Church
period and the present-day Feminist and LGBTQ movement.

“To fully apprehend the performative subversion of gendering at work in this
apparently very ‘gay’ baptism ritual performed by the Naassenes, it is
important to note Bernadette Brooten’s apt remarks regarding this text in
her essential book, Love Between Women, that in the Greco-Roman world
a man who engaged in a passive same-sex act was considered effeminate in
much the same way as an ‘active’ homoerotic woman was considered masculine
(1996: 342–43). Note also lesbian feminist thinker Monique Wittig’s famous
dictum that ‘Lesbians are not women’ (30) but ‘something else, a not-woman,
a not-man’ (12–13) But this
subversive citation of Paul
seems to go still
further; although not an iota is taken out of the text that was read in the
proto-orthodox Church, the way it was read against itself is mesmerizing,
especially when compared to Butler’s description of the resignification
process undergone by the word ‘queer.’

‘Within queer politics, indeed, within the very signification that is
‘queer,’ we read a resignifying practice in which the de-sanctioning power
of the name ‘queer’ is reversed to sanction a contestation of the terms of
sexual legitimacy. Paradoxically, but also with great promise, the subject
who is ’queered’ into public discourse through homophobic interpellations of
various kinds takes up or cites that very term as a discursive
for an opposition. This kind of citation will emerge as theatrical to
the extent that it mimes and renders hyperbolic the discursive
convention it also reverses. The hyperbolic gesture is crucial to the
exposure of the homophobic ‘law’ which can no longer control the terms of
its own abjecting strategies [Butler 1993:23, italics in the original].’

“There is very little doubt that ‘unnatural’ (para physin) can and
should be considered a ’homophobic interpellation’ in the Greco-Roman world,
at least as far as sexual acts are concerned, for it was the prototypical
term for denoting any sexual acts which were not considered gender
sustaining, that is, acts in which women were active (=masculine) or adult
freemen were passive (=effeminate, Brooten: 1–2 and passim). There is
also a possibility that ‘unseemly’ (aschēmosynē) was such an
interpellation, at least for a Judeo-Christian audience, for this word
frequently translates the Hebrew ‘ervah in the Septuagint (especially
in Leviticus, Brooten 1996: 257), often referring to women’s genitals.

“At any rate, Paul’s use of these terms was sure to imbue them with even more
power, for early Christians read and interpreted his words (see, for
instance, John Chrysostom’s fourth homily on Romans discussed in Brooten
1996: 344–48; see also Brooten 1989), and even used them as a stock
quotation whenever a hint of homoeroticism was in the background, as can be
seen even in the quote from Epiphanius provided above (p. 27).

“The only way to interfere with this iterative process, which gave the
appearance of an ’original’ or ’natural’ heteronormativity, was by
subversive citation, which appears to be exactly what the Naassenes were
doing.
Within their performative baptismal ritual, the ‘homophobic’ or, to use a
less anachronistic term that would have probably made much more sense to the Naassenes, the ‘natural’ law was seen to be unable to ‘control the terms of
its abjecting strategies,’ as Butler aptly puts it. While Wayne A. Meeks
(181–83;202–03) had already postulated that ‘there is neither male nor
female’ (Gal 3:28) was originally a performative utterance in baptismal
ritual during Paul’s own time, one with which the Corinthians were rather
carried away (at least according to Paul’s own judgment), the Naassenes
baptismal ritual left little room for doubt: the ‘blessed pleasure,’ the
‘living water,’ and the ’other ointment,’ sent one to the ‘unfading
pleasure’ and freedom of the queered gender.”

Historical accounts of Gnosticism reveal obvious connections
with modern-day Gnostics who are queering the verses and passages in God’s Word that are
“homophobic.” Like
the ancient Gnostics, they
are
“queering the Bible”
to be
“heterophobic”!

GNOSTIC DOCTRINE

There is an
explanation for the Gnostics’ perverted view of gender roles, which does not
excuse their sin, but rather magnifies its abominable character — their
blasphemous portrayal of the God of the Bible as an “evil demiurge.”
Motivated by hatred of God who instituted heterosexual marriage, condemned
sodomy, judged the pre-flood world and later Sodom and Gomorrah, the
ancient Gnostics renounced heterosexuality and embraced “androgyny” as a way
to subvert the “evil demiurge”:

The Queer God, the Human,
and the Evil Creator

“At this point we may indeed stop and ask: Why should one feel
himself or herself to be so constrained to fight gendering in every possible
way? Or, if this question is too broad to be dealt with in this present
discussion, how would one explain the rationale behind such an endeavor? A
hint is already provided in Hippolytus’ account, where it is noted that the
pure human according to these gnostics was ‘neither male nor female, but a
new creature, a new Human.’ Indeed this is a recurrent motif in most, if not
all, gnostic writings: the original perfect human, or anthrōpos, is
neither gendered nor sexed, and gender is the creation of an evil,
inferior, and overly masculine god whose purpose is to delude humankind lest
they recognize their heavenly origin.”
(“Gnostically
Queer”)

The Naassenes were a sect
of the Ophites, who worshipped “that old Serpent, which is the Devil, and
Satan” who first misrepresented God in order to deceive Eve in the Garden of Eden. The
Naassenes’ misinterpretation of God’s Word is, therefore, an extension of
the Serpent’s original lie and has been the Gnostic delusion of all ages to
the present day and will be the “strong delusion” during the Tribulation
period:

“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye
shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then
your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:4-5

“And for this cause God shall send them
strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be
damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2
Thess. 2:11-12

Cahana concludes with some insight as to the ultimate objective of the Queer
movement and the Gnostics who preceded it – the destruction of the world
after which they anticipate the
resurrection of the lost civilization of Atlantis,
the pre-Flood culture which God destroyed:

“My opinion is that those parallels between Gnosticism and the queer
movement are at once promising and troubling. Promising, because a deeper
study may be able to throw additional light on both phenomena. Troubling,
because of the implications this may have for the queer movement. I am not
only referring to the disappearance of Gnosticism after a relatively short
period of time without leaving any real mark on Western culture. Much more
troubling is these gnostics’ conviction that sex and gender are so
intertwined with the structure of this world that any attempt to dismantle
one would lead to the destruction of the other. From their point of view,
that is nothing to lament: the sooner this world came to an end, the better.
Now one may indeed object to this formulation of the problem, ...And, after
all, it is certainly not my intention to propose that we should accept as
such the arguments of those alienated and redemption-oriented Christians who
lived almost 2,000 years ago. But they are worthy of our reflection.”

Gnosticism was a
Christianized version of Greek Platonist philosophy which was derived from
the ancient pagan mystery religions and passed on through the Alexandrian
Gnostics, the Essenes, Jewish Kabbalists, the Hermetica, Knights Templar,
Rosicrucians, Freemasonry, Theosophy, Hinduism and all pagan cults
throughout history to the present day New Age movement.

Gnosticism
began with a perverted view of Creation. According to this heresy, Adam was
originally a “divine spark”—Adam Kadmon—not male, but male-female, or
androgynous. In time, this “first Adam” became attracted to materiality and
incarnated into matter. As Adam-Kadmon descended into matter, the “divine
androgyne” was divided into two sexes which took on material bodies,
becoming Adam and Eve. As a result of Adam-Kadmon’s “fall” into the material
realm, humanity is now trapped in matter.

After the
first Adam’s descent into matter, Lucifer, who was co-creator of the world
with God, offered the fallen Adam and Eve a means of release from their
bondage in matter. They needed only to eat of the tree of the “knowledge of
good and evil” which God had forbidden them to do. The forbidden fruit
represented “spiritual enlightenment” with the power to become “gods,”
having the ability to transcend matter and to be reabsorbed into the “divine
principle” from which they originated. However, the other creator-God,
rudely intervened in Lucifer’s plan in order to keep man trapped in matter
and subject to Himself. To prevent Adam from taking of the tree of life,
that he might achieve immortality, “The Lord God sent him forth from the
Garden of Eden. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the
garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to
keep the way of the tree of life.” (Gen. 3:24)

In Gnostic
belief, this God is an “evil Demiurge” and “Satan,” whereas Lucifer is the
true God who is in a continuing battle with the evil Demiurge for possession
of planet Earth. And so, Lucifer’s offer still stands for those who will
receive “spiritual enlightenment”— the delusion that they can become “gods”
and escape the control of the “evil Demiurge.”

The homosexual agenda is a revival of ancient Gnosticism, which is classical
paganism with Christian veneer. Just as the LGBTQs deny their obvious male
and female biological sex, and demand affirmation of “how they feel inside”
as their true gender, so “Gnosticism
does not accept the evidence of material reality and goes within for
personal truth”:

“Robert Reilly recently re-formulated his critique of the homosexual agenda
by describing it as a contemporary form of Gnosticism, which reinvents
reality, as ancient Gnosticism did. Gnosticism does not accept the evidence
of material reality and goes within for personal truth. In my own study of
this ancient heresy, Stolen
Identity: The Conspiracy To Re-Invent Jesus (2006), I document
how Gnosticism rejected the objectivity of the flesh, including normal
marriage and childbirth (‘flee maternity’ and ‘destroy the works of
femaleness,’ Dialogue
of the Savior, 144:9-10), held androgyny as the ideal (Gospel
of Thomas, 22), consistently denied God the Creator, and in a
final rejection of Twoism, the Gnostic ‘goddess’ Zoe ‘breathed [fire] upon
his (Jahweh) face and threw him down into Hell’ (Hypostasis
of the Archons, 94:8). This is
what is now happening in Western culture with the spread of this neo-Gnostic
spirituality and sexuality.

“This is what people will more and more do with
the biblical self-revelation. In order to make a case for God, we must
realize that we do it in this deeply hostile context. And why? Because
beneath the surface of rites and acceptance lurks a deeply pagan view of
existence.

CLASSIC PAGANISM

“Finally, Gnosticism is a variant of classic paganism, expressed in the
ancient mystery cults and then taking on a veneer of Christianity, and it is
worthy of note that historically, over time and across space in classic
pagan cults, the shaman is invariably a homosexual—see my article ‘Androgyny:
The Pagan Sexual Ideal.’ The great expert in
world religions, Mircea Eliade, in his study of pagan religions speaks of
‘ritualized androgyny’ as a classic form of the pagan cultus from two
thousand BC to today. Walter L. Williams in his study The
Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture,
shows that before the invasion of the Spanish conquistadores, homosexual
shamans dominated the animistic, earth-worshiping spirituality of the Mayans
and Aztecs. In North American Indian culture the homosexual Berdache was the
spiritual leader in the tribal religions of pagan animism. The reason is
that the goal of paganism is to destroy the binary and ‘join the opposites,/
to produce a unified world, a pagan cosmology of which the homosexual is an
embodied expression, denying the creational
heterosexual norm.”

GENDER FLUID CHILDREN

Based on the perverse
delusion of postmodern Gnostics, “gender fluidity” is now taught to children
and adolescents from pre-kindergarten through high school. This abomination
Rosaria Butterfield never exposes or opposes but, in fact, she facilitates
through her books. Rosaria blazes abroad that the Christian
community is “homophobic” but utters not a word about the global abuse of
children by Planned Parenthood’s pornographic
Comprehensive Sexuality Education
Curriculum which is disseminated by the United Nations. In the meantime,
parents remain uninformed and unaware that their children as young as
4 years old are learning Queer Theory in their schools, which teaches them
the perverted notion that they can be anywhere on the gender spectrum,
depending not on their DNA but “how they feel inside.” A recent article
reports that California schools are deliberately keeping parents uninformed:

“ROCKLIN, California, August 21, 2017 (LifeSiteNews)
— A number of angry parents are considering legal action after a charter
school kindergarten teacher staged what one critic calls a transgender
‘transition ceremony’ in class for a five-year-old boy without informing
parents beforehand.

“But Rocklin Academy Schools has countered that
it didn’t have to tell parents about the transgenderism lesson that has left
a number of five-year-olds shaken and disturbed. Because gender identity
isn’t sex education, the administration said, it’s not subject to
California’s parental consent and opt-out laws, reported Fox40News.”

Teaching children that their gender is
changeable, that they can become whatever gender they choose, is CHILD
ABUSE. And those who teach “queer theory” are facilitating child abuse.

“A cutesy little
‘Gender Unicorn’ in the vein of
‘Barney the Purple Dinosaur’ has been
popping up on college campuses across the country, offering students a
snowflake-friendly way to learn about the gender spectrum.

“Created by the organization Trans Student Educational Resources (TSER), the
happy little graphic featuring a purple unicorn with its thoughts fixated on a
colorful rainbow offer students quick little lessons in
‘gender identity,’‘gender expression,’‘sex assigned at birth,’‘physically attracted to,’
and
‘emotionally attracted to,’
while providing them a scale on the gender spectrum.”

Orwellian Newspeak: “biological
sex”
vs. “sex
assigned at birth.” Biological
sex is not “assigned
at birth” but
determined
by God before conception.

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.”
Jeremiah 1:5

“I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully
made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right
well.“My
substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously
wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.“Thine
eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my
members were written, which in continuance were fashioned,